A Color-Coded Adventure

In Candide, Voltaire employs a color code to differentiate people’s different intentions towards other people. Evidence has proven that the color ‘black’ identifies those fanatics who wish terrible harm on a select group. We find people throughout chapters 3 and 5 who are given a black accessory. The “little man in black” (35), an inquisition officer at the end of the 5^th chapter, has dark intentions. He is a religious fanatic, as is the preacher of chapter 3, who indoctrinates charity, but ruthlessly refuses it to Candide for being an unfaithful. This “gentleman in the black gown and his wife” (27) are too religious zealots.

There is one person who Voltaire smudges with a hint of blackness in chapter 3. Dr. Pangloss, although completely benevolent, contains a trace of close mindedness. It is also possible that the color black does not symbolize maliciousness at all, but rather pure intolerance to anything foreign, for, in his way, Dr. Pangloss too is a fanatic. As opposed to the others, this radicalism is philosophical, as opposed to the religious extremism of the others. Also, Dr. Pangloss’s darkness is represented by his “teeth were black” (28), and we get the impression that he wishes to better himself by gaining tolerance when Voltaire said that “at every bout which he spat out a tooth” (28). It is also possible that Dr. Pangloss’s newly discovered evil is foreshadowing his future actions. It may be that while he is good now, Voltaire is warning us of his forthcoming transformation.

The color blue signifies the partial altruism of people like who helped Candide in his time of need. Good-hearted people like those who helped Candide find some food, like, the “two men in blue noticed him” (22) are the epitome of a degree of kindness which demands something in return. This is a service that is not truthful, but rather costly and conditional. I will be attentive to other mentions of colors in this novel, particularly blue, so that I can clearly define attributes it gives to characters.

It's Satire. Honest!

I noticed a degree of satire when reading Voltaire’s Candide, particularly during chapters 2 and 3. Although this will be the topic of another blog, I have noticed similarities between Don Quixote and Candide, particularly in their picaresque and naïve manner of being, which cause them to be grotesquely treated by some and humorously valued by others.

When Candide is starved and seeking generosity, we find irony in a preacher’s behavior: “For a man who had just been addressing a big audience for a whole hour on the subject of charity” (26) couldn’t bring himself to help Candide, a man certainly in need of generosity. In this case, the man’s religious zeal made him able to preach the values he didn’t pursue. However, If his teachings involved charity segregated to the faithful, then he certainly acted on behalf of his “moral” doctrines, however unethical.

Another example of satirical humor, particularly irony as well, is the instance where Voltaire describes the scramble for battle and the organization it entails. What should be described as a dissonance of sides battling against each other is depicted as “bugles, fifes, oboes, drums, and salvoes of artillery [that] produced such a harmony as Hell itself could not rival” (25). Voltaire illustrates perfectly orchestrated chaos. Not only is this ironic, but it implies the innocent mentality of Candide. He sees the simplicity of the world with its complications: Two groups don’t agree so they will organize a confrontation. Everything has a reason: Cause and effect.

Animals In Slaughterhouse-five: An Insight On Resisting Reality

Why does Billy Pilgrim have an abnormal number of animal encounters in Slaughterhouse-five? Pilgrim’s experiences with animals depict the inhumane treatment of people in World War II in an indirect and satiric manner. They also portray the effects of war on people’s consciences. Billy’s clumsy personality and fantastic experiences help delineate such things in a humorous manner. His extraterrestrial escapade to Tralfalmadore further stresses the non-human conditions of people and the animalistic behavior of those in favor of the war.

Although there are dozens of references to animals in Slaughterhouse-Five, I shall make reference to a select few. One of Vonnegut’s connections of human to animal treatment in World War II includes the moments during Billy Pilgrim’s imprisonment by the Germans. He mentions the source of the lubrication for the axles of a cart. On one page, he claims them to be “greased with the fat of dead animals” (157), while in a different part of the book, Pilgrim alleges: “The “candles and the soap were made from the fat of rendered Jews and Gypsies and fairies and communists, and other enemies of the state” (96). Although he doesn’t directly mention grease in the second quotation, we do know that some soap and candles are made from animal fat. I believe it is safe to say that Vonnegut has juxtaposed these references to lubrication so that we may find a hinted simile in their sources of fat. The “Jews and Gypsies and fairies and communists, and other enemies of the state” were regarded as animals. If they weren’t always considered as animals, they were certainly treated brutally.

Concentration camps were common hells of the Holocaust. One of their dreaded characteristics were the gas chambers, where mass numbers of prisoners would be mercilessly butchered. Vonnegut envisions the thoughts of the Germans while they were gassing the Jews: “When Billy got his clothes back, they weren’t any cleaner, but all the little animals that had been living in them were dead” (90). Vonnegut makes an allusion to gas chambers and decontamination chambers, comparing the death of the animal pests living near the person with the “Jews and Gypsies and fairies and communists, and other enemies of the state” (96) living alongside the “elite”. These minorities were considered pests to be exterminated.

There is one intolerable thing war is known to: strip people of their conscience. For instance, Paul Lazarro is a perfect example of a human whose intention to do good has been dismantled by war. We can see that brutality was not limited to the German troops by recognizing Lazarro’s hunger for pain. He rants that he is impervious to pain, especially if he is the one inflicting it, when he proudly retold what he did to a dog that once bit him: “So I got me some stake, and I got me the spring out of a clock. I cut that spring up in little pieces. I put points on the ends of the pieces. They were sharp as razor blades. I stuck ‘em into the steak-way inside. And I went past where they had the dog tied up. He wanted to bite me again. I said to him, ‘Come on, doggie-let’s be friends…He believed me…He swallowed it down in one big gulp…’Now Lazzaro’s eyes twinkled… ‘Anybody ever asks you what the sweetest thing in life is…it’s revenge” (139). War has made people like Paul Lazarro animals: taking pleasure from seeing others in agony.

As we can infer from another animal reference, during the Second World War, minorities were barbarically treated. On one occasion, Billy becomes the unwitting aggressor of a pair of horses. In their toil, they become afflicted by effects of the work they were set out to do: “The horses’ mouths were bleeding, gashed by the bits, that the horses’ hooves were broken, so that every step meant agony, that the horses were insane with thirst” (196). In this maxim, the reader is astonished to be informed that a horse, which we relate to perfect health in the simile, “as healthy as a horse”, is being overexploited. Furthermore, humans were also forced to endless drudgery during this period (hence the animal torture). As the Americans here “had treated their form of transportation as though it were no more sensitive that a six-cylinder Chevrolet” (196), so had the Germans treated the Jews as if they were no more than mindless animals, good for nothing but labor. Known to be an enduring people, the treatment of Jews was lowered to remorseless segregation. In the same way, the horse, which is famous for its health, was greatly deprived of its wellbeing.

Certain animals have gained linguistic attribution for a variety of traits: “Blind as a bat”, “strong as an ox”, a “cunning fox”, “as busy as a bee”, and “healthy as a horse”, among other similes. When describing his abduction by the Tralfalmadores, Billy Pilgrim makes an allusion to an animal, the owl when he recalls that “he heard the cry of what might have been a melodious owl, but it wasn’t a melodious owl. It was a flying saucer from Tralfalmadore…” (75). Owls are known to be the wise ones of the animal kingdom. This is probably due to their superior awareness of their surroundings, considering the fact that they have great eyesight, and can turn their heads more than 360 degrees to any side. Furthermore, Athene, the Greek goddess of wisdom, was so marveled by the observant eyes and majectic appearance of owls, that she honored it by making it her favorite feathered bird. Also, the hoot of an owl was known to be an omen of defeat, death, or even pure evil, while the mere sighting of the bird meant victory in battle. It is possible that a part of Billy Pilgrim will die with the arrival of truth and choice less reality: the human part, which clings to hopes and dreams. It is also possible that Pilgrim is signaling the arrival of wisdom into his life. In particular, he refers to the wisdom of one’s environment and how to act based on conclusions obtained from the acquired knowledge. In Tralfalmadore, Billy will learn that the purpose of life is nonexistent. He is given the wisdom required to cope with war: Believing that it was unavoidable and thus, merits no guilt. It is the shortcut to accepting unfavorable circumstances: Assuming that predestination is the way of life. This indirectness aids the author, Vonnegut, in his recollection of the war: It becomes easier, somewhat detached.

In Tralfalmadore, Pilgrim “was displayed naked in a zoo, he said” (25), where, excluding his luxurious accommodations, his status of imprisonment could be easily compared to that of a Jew in a ghetto or concentration camp. People would pass by the perimeter and contemplate the existence of the “animals” within. Although people in Tralfalmadore didn’t view humans, or Billy in particular, as inferior (as people in the Holocaust did), they did view him with pity for his lack of perception. Pilgrim’s incarceration however, couldn’t have been clearer.

Finally, after analyzing the evidence, we can safely assume that the inhumane treatment of people in World War II is depicted in an indirect and satiric manner Billy Pilgrim’s animal encounters in Slaughterhouse-Five. They also portray the effects of war on people’s conscience. Kurt Vonnegut, the “pillar of salt” (22) who wrote this book, is regretting recalling his past, which he does so by means of animal references, which make everything easier to bear. Now, the question we must ask ourselves is the following: To make it “easier to bear”, would we be avoiding reality if we believed in the Tralfalmadorian theory of life and time, or should we confront actuality with the determination to make amends? Billy Pilgrim seems to favor the former, while Kurt Vonnegut, his creator, acknowledges the truth of the present and the possibility of a different future. However, Vonnegut still swerves reality using a method other than the belief of predestination and the impotence towards the past, present, and future: he uses clever similes, metaphors, and juxtapositions. Why would Billy and Vonnegut be using different methods to cope with the truth?

Is Freedom Kosher?

Today, in my religion class, I learned about the approach which we should take when treating others. My teacher, Rabbi Moti, told me a famous saying that advised you to “treat your fellow as yourself” (Jewish proverb). We analyzed this meaningful teaching for the entire class’s duration. I learned that you should give what you like to be given, be treated as you would like to be treated, speak as you would like to be spoken to, etc…

Epictetus, in his handbook of free will and freedom to be free, has a much more stoic approach towards unfortunate events in comparison to the Jewish religion. Epictetus recommends an indifferent reaction towards losses. He gives a sample which he uses to describe the target psychological effect: We must think that “it’s one of those things that just happen” (18.26), as we do when somebody else has experienced a loss. We should be equally passive in regards to our losses instead of thinking “Alas! Poor me” (18.26)! The Bhagavad-Gita has a similar modus operandi: “He does not rejoice or hate,/ grieve or feel desire;/ relinquishing fortune and misfortune,/ the man of devotion is dear to me./ Impartial to foe and friend,/ honor and contempt,/ cold and heat, joy and suffering,/ he is free from attachment” (111.17-18). (Losses are known, when not accepted by the mourner, to enslave the griever.)

Jewish teachings contradict advice from the Bhagavad-Gita: According to Jewish religion, we must treat other's grievances as if they were our own. If we are to live contently, is it better to heed the Bhagavad-Gita and be unconditionally indifferent, or be an emotional being of society, appropriately mourning others’ losses as if they were our own? Which would make us happier?

Dear Mr. Frost

Dear Mr. Frost,

I would like to make a criticism regarding your poem, “The Road Not Taken”. You must not sigh after you take the choice that you decided. If you go on “telling this with a sigh” (Frost), you will never be content with your choice. You must never look back, but live in the present. It is necessary “to look down one [choice’s effects] as far as I could” (Frost): Planning the future is crucial for one’s well-being, but let this not hamper your complete existence in this moment.

Do as my handbook to happiness instructs to do, and you will be content with every choice you make, however “equivocal”: “Do not seek to have events happen as you want them to, but instead want them to happen as they do happen, and your life will go well” (13.8). Do not grieve you’re the road not taken, but rather rejoice the one you did. Take joy in every path life leads you through, to make every experience constructive and positive. Finally, take joy in this moment, not hindering on the past, for from past only comes regret. Be happy with your choices and they shall always lead you to the best way.

Sincerely,

Epictetus

Supreme Gratification

Even today, death and reputation are some of principle concerns of the common person. As the Bhagavad-Gita explains, "for a man of honor, shame is worse that death" (36.34). When someone is shunned by society, to some, it may appear as if death has engulfed them. For us to become "gradually tranquil, firmly controlling his understanding; focusing his mind on the self, he should think nothing" (68.25), we should be unconditionally grateful for what we have. Only by this shall we lack the desire of that which is not up to us, that which binds us to our fears and cravings.

According to The Handbook of Epictetus, we must consider the worst of possibilities in order to be grateful for the way our life turns out: "Let death and exile and everything that is terrible appear before your eyes every day, especially death; and you will never have anything contemptible in your thoughts or crave anything excessively" (16.21). We must discipline ourselves to be confident of the joy we find within ourselves, for, as the Gita teaches, "an ignorant man is lost, faithless, and filled with self-doubt; a soul that harbors doubt has no joy, not in this world or the next" (56.40). We must be eternally content with what we have and find joy within ourselves to be rid of the shackles of fear and materialism.

Is Life Is Finishing School?

The Secret’s philosophy (by Rhonda Byrne), which says that we must not wait for the things we want, but rather “expect the things you want” (93), is a philosophical dichotomy with The Handbook Of Epictetus’s teachings. The Secret tells us to be grateful for what we have and what we want to have to “turbo charge your desires and sends a more powerful signal out into the universe” (93) and the universe will grant them. However, The Handbook of Epictetus says that we must, as if in a banquet, “reach out your hand politely and take some. It goes by: do not hold it back. It has not arrived yet: do not stretch your desire out toward it, but wait until it comes to you” (15.15) In brief, what must we do when approaching the things we want in life: Do we politely take what is offered or scream across the table demanding for what we want?

Respecting the Secret’s teachings would be a rude thing to do in a metaphorical banquet like the one described in The Handbook of Epictetus. I believe that the stoic philosophy of The Handbook would shun the Secret’s imprudent and disrespectful way of leading life, demanding anything and everything upon mere whim. This contrast of teachings reflects the enduring question of our purpose of being. What place do we have in the cosmos? Are we unique, entitled to rightly demanding our wishes? Or are we simple guests in the divine banquet of gods who demand supreme modesty and respect? We shall never truly know.

Tralfalmagita

As I write this blog, I’m thinking of trying to finish it in time to do other things before it gets too late. If I expect to accomplish this, then I may be greatly disappointed, while if I don’t expect anything at all, I will agree with any outcome. The Handbook of Epictetus, much like the Bhagavad-Gita, teaches us to accept the future and whatever it brings. While the Handbook of Epictetus instructs us to cope with the future by accepting everything unchangeable as unchangeable, the Bhagavad-Gita commands us to “be intent on action,/ not the fruits of action;/ avoid attraction to the fruits/ and attachment to inaction!” (38). The Handbook of Epictetus is a text which promotes focusing on the acceptance of the fruits of action, however they appear to be, while the Gita indoctrinates to ignore the fruits altogether and learn from the journey, which is a win-win situation: You will learn either way if the fruits are rotten or not.

The Tralfalmadorians of Slaughterhouse-Five can be easily compared to the teachings of the Gita: They both encourage the focusing of attention on the journey rather than the outcome, which is a much more constructive experience than simply accepting every result. In this sense, I believe that the Handbook of Epictetus is lacking a fundamental trait in living. If we merely “do not seek to have events happen as you want them to, but instead want them to happen as they do happen” (13.8), as the Handbook of Epictetus advises, we let ourselves be carried away by the current of life, learning nothing from the journey. Experiences are very valuable and the Handbook has proven to be a guide to simply live life neutrally, without focusing on the fruits, but not focusing on the journey either.

So, Does It Go?

One of many realizations many people experience upon losing a loved one, I believe, is the How-can-everything-be-going-on-normally-as-if-nothing-had -happened? surprise. In Slaughterhouse-Five, Kurt Vonnegut describes the fictitious existence of the Tralfalmadorian race who, aided by their superior perceptive capabilities, have accepted time and nature, let alone fate, as unchangeable and predetermined; a world I describe in my blog, God Is A Mechanic.

One thing we must acknowledge is the passing of time and the emotions its varying events carry. For instance, when the writer of the Dresden book describes the book, he begins with introducing a massacre. He tells of how “everything is supposed to be very quiet after a massacre. . .”(19). The birds say “all there is to sat about a massacre, things like “Poo-tee-weet?””(19). As I see it, here Vonnegut leads us to believe that the birds ask what reaction we will take from this massacre: Will we be Tralfalmadorianly indifferent, or humanly emotional? Billy Pilgrim’s view regarding this question changes throughout the book. I mention this metamorphosis in my blog, Billy Pilgrim’s Indifference: So It Goes. This is the question the birds ask.

Mine is a philosophical question which we may never know the answer to: Even if the Tralfalmadorians were to exist and they would be correct on their theory of time, would we still be lachrymosely affected? After the bombing of Dresden and the end of the second World War (and the end of the book as well, for that matter), “one bird said to Billy Pilgrim, “Poo-too-weet?””(215). This makes the Billy as well as the reader himself question the reaction he must have with respect to the war: Shall I be indifferent or shall I be human? Is it possible to be humanly indifferent? Poo-tee-weet?

Animals in Slaughter House-Five

Thesis Statement: Billy Pilgrim's experience with animals shows the savage treatment of World War Two victims.

Argumenting points:

1. Billy's stay in the Tralfalmadorian zoo: Pg. 75, 113.

2. Billy's interactions with animals during the war: Pg. 197, 82

3. People treating Billy like an animal during and after the war: 192 & 193, 42 & 48

Billy Pilgrim's Indifference: So It Goes

I believe that everyone, no matter how toughened, has a minimum of one emotional weak spot. The unfair and often cruel treatment of animals is my personal debility. Some people take advantage of animals by making them fight others of their sort. Animal abuse also includes cruelly scolding an animal, confining them to small spaces or collars (their necks eventually grow thicker than the diameter of the collars, choking them), or starving them. I can’t stand the sight of an abused animal without doing something about it.

Billy Pilgrim endured all of World War II without shedding a tear for anything: The bombing of Dresden, the cold frontier Winters, and the cruel treatment of Nazi officials. It wasn’t until he was shown the state of the horses he was using for transport in Dresden that his emotional indifference burst. Vonnegut describes how the German obstetricians he met in the ruined Dresden “made Billy get out of the wagon and come look at the horses. When Billy saw his means of transportation, he burst into tears. He hadn’t cried about anything else in the war” (Vonnegut pg. 197). This type of cruelty is something to “weep quietly” (Vonnegut pg. 197) about. “Loud boohooing noises” (Vonnegut Pg. 197) only demonstrate the need for others to acknowledge your distress. A private weep is something much more personal and solemn. Here, I believe that Vonnegut gives Billy Pilgrim a degree of personality and psychosomatic reaction towards the events taking place. His grievance finally signals the existence of his human response, where before, he was indifferent to everything.

Unknown Vocabulary From SHF

Unknown Vocabulary in SHF Ch. 8: All definitions are from the Oxford English Dictionary

Haggardly (Pg. 173): “They thought he might be having a heart attack, and Billy seemed to confirm this by going to a chair and sitting down haggardly.” I think that the word ‘haggardly’ means ‘to do something in an awkward or uncomfortable manner’. It means: “’Looking exhausted and unwell, esp. from fatigue, worry, or suffering’”. One example of a sentence with this word is: After pondering on my big misteak, I haggardly cooked myself dinner.”

Psychosomatic (Pg. 172): “Billy had powerful psychosomatic responses to the changing chords.” I think that the word ‘psychosomatic’ means ‘a psychological response that affects the body’. It means: “‘(of a physical illness or other condition) caused or aggravated by a mental factor such as internal conflict or stress’”. Ex: My psychosomatic response to the exams were my physical illness.

Lugubriously (Pg. 168): “As Trout lugubriously slung the bag from his shoulder, Billy Pilgrim approached him.” I think that the word lugubriously means ‘to execute in with a negative attitude’. It means: “’looking or sounding sad or dismal’”. Ex: I lugubriously played the guitar.

Halitosis (Pg. 168): “It was about a robot who had bad breath, who became popular after his halitosis was cured.” I think that ‘halitosis’ means ‘an illness that causes terrible breath’. It means: “’Technical term for bad breath’”. Ex: My halitosis alienated others.

Whitewash (pg. 165): “The Americans went to these, brushing away flakes of whitewash before they sat down.” I think that ‘whitewash’ means ‘the snowflake-like material that results from a humid freezer. It means: “’a solution of lime and water or of whiting, size, and water, used for painting walls white’”. Ex: I used whitewash to paint my room.

Pinschers (Pg. 171): “I’m afraid of cancer and rats and Doberman pinschers.” I think that ‘pinschers’ means ‘a type of dog of the Doberman family.’ It means: “’Any of three breeds of dogs whose ears and tail are usually cropped’”. Ex: My pinscher looks like a rat with its tail.

Uproariously (Pg. 172): “Kilgore Trout laughed uproariously.” I think that ‘uproariously’ means ‘to feign amusement’. It means: “’Characterized by or provoking loud noise or uproar’”. Ex: The party went on uproariously.

Fringe (Pg. 173): “Valencia stayed with him, and Kilgore Trout, who had been on the fringe of the crowd, came closer, interested, shrewd.” I think that ‘fringe’ means ‘of the uncommon and unpopular sort’. It means: “’not part of the mainstream; unconventional, peripheral, or extreme’”. Ex: The study of fringe science is not widely accepted by conservatives.

Nacreous (Pg. 177): “It was nacreous pink.” I think that ‘nacreous’ means ‘strong tone’. It means: “’Consisting of or resembling mother of pearl’”. Ex: The nacreous background went well with the rugs.
Calcimine (Pg. 177): “All that happened down there was an occasional shower of calcimine.” I think that ‘calcimine’ means ‘the effect of calcium storage over long periods of time’. It means “’A kind of white or pale blue white wash for walls and ceilings’”. Ex: The calcimine of the walls landed on my bead and made me sneeze.

Snobism Revised

I state that one of the most despicable traits is a person is snobbism. I am vexed at the sight of someone disgracing their potential. They believe they can order others around to do their tasks. I feel sorry for such people: Not only are they becoming a pain, but they are surrendering their life’s potential by capitulating to their own laziness.

When someone (commonly a teenager) commands a maid to carry out an obviously simple task they themselves could do, what is that person thinking? For instance, when someone asks their maid to prepare another dish because the one available is either “unacceptable” or “disgustful”, he isn’t considering the amount of energy that required to make it. That person is being supremely ungrateful, which fills me with disgust. It spites me so, that upon experiencing such act being carried out, my image of that person immediately changes. I believe that a person who is tortured by lethargy and doesn’t attempt to be rid of it is condemned to a life of inutility.

Defeated by his/her laziness, and relying on “superiority” to command others to carry out their tasks, snobs make me sick at the stomach. What vexes me even more is the fact that they believe that they have the right to act the way they do. In my opinion, the idiosyncrasy of thinking that others can and should do one’s tasks is taught by the parents, who often participate and even promote it. As the ultimate role models of every person, parents have the dire responsibility to act respectfully towards others. When a child is seen showing signs of contempt, everyone around him/her should reprimand the act, explaining how such behavior is the pitfall of human behavior in society. Instead, most parents are afraid of scolding their children in fear of being marked as extremists or controllers. As long as people act haughtily towards others, it shall be difficult to them to summon the energy required for the most simple of tasks. They will alienate others and will become lazy, wasting their lives in hoping that others will work for them.

God Is A Mechanic

Before reading the sixth of the Harry Potter books by J.K. Rowling, my cousin cruelly spoiled its great ending for me. Although I had prior knowledge of the ending and overall plot, I wanted to read it to experience the joys of anagnorisis. Living the experience, however pointless, was the reason that I chose to proceed with the read.

“Lionel Merble was a machine. …Every creature and plant in the Universe is a machine” (Vonnegut Pg. 154). Divinely-programmed events have been imposed upon us ever since we existed. Is this true or has our future been randomly formed prior to our “spontaneous” existence? Either this is factual, or we, beings with supreme control over our fates, have been given a great opportunity. The Tralfalmadorians of Slaughter House-Five by Kurt Vonnegut obviously trust the former, more constricted set of beliefs: Everyone and everything is a robot (believe what you want on who, if at all, programmed us).

Is the purpose of the Tralfalmadorian-lived life to experience, or simply let life arrive and leave, leaving no impression on anything? Irrevocably convinced of the Tralfalmadorian way of thinking of the existence of a worthless life, “Billy Pilgrim got onto a chartered airplane in Ilium twenty-five years after that. He knew it was going to crash but he didn’t want to make a fool of himself be saying so” (Vonnegut Pg. 154). Why would he? Nobody would believe him. I don’t think anyone would believe his “theory” without substantial evidence. People are too scared to accept their impotency in their lives.

Ode on a Distant Prospect of Eton College

"Yet ah! why should they know their fate?
Since sorrow never comes too late,
And happiness too swiftly flies.
Thought would destroy their paradise.
No more; where ignorance is bliss,
'Tis folly to be wise."

Thomas Gray

Memories Of The Future

Once, in a "boxcar [I] said, "Oz." That was I. That was me. The only other city I'd ever seen [apart from Dresden] was Indianapolis, Indiana" (Vonnegut Pg. 148). I recall the magnificent sight as if it were 1945. As if "seeing all time as you might see a stretch of the Rocky Mountains" (Vonnegut Pg. 85-86), I will recall the "home away from home" (Vonnegut Pg. 152) we were given and taught to call Slaughter House-Five. It was a cozy place with terrible memories of death, not unlike those that will be formed of the present in the future. How do I describe my experiences with that bum called Pilgrim? I shall do my best. He was a quiet fellow who will one day become very famous and then die. The way in which he dies is already known by me, him, and all of his followers of the future. When he was a young optometrist and his millipede of a four-dimensional body, and walked "bobbing up-and-down, up-and-down" (Vonnegut Pg. 65), Billy was a man who had completely gotten accustomed to his lifestyle of "bobbing..." (Vonnegut Pg. 65). How he did it was a precious mystery which we all long to avoid and achieve in a way.

Life is a big roller coaster: Billy knew that. And although we long for the ups and dread the downs, we will only feel the emotions they cause if they are aware of the present, and only the present. Why then, would anyone be condemned to a life without any expectations or goals or excitement? Is it truly a good thing to have the ability to be a time-traveler-seer as are the Tralfalmadorians and Billy Pilgrim? Maybe "ignorance is bliss" (Thomas Gray. Ode on a Distant Prospect of Eton College ).

It Just Is (The "is" is Italicized)

A friend once asked me why I walked as I did. You know, "bobbing up-and-down, up-and-down..." (Vonnegut Pg. 65). It is the way in which I was made to go on my way. We are all preset to a life of unexpectedness and change. There's just nothing to do about that. That's the way which we're all predestined to follow. So as I stared into my friend's eyes, and he stared into mine, I knew that I had to explain to him the patience that having "ups and downs, ups and downs" (Vonnegut Pg. 87) in my life required. Some people often lost patience with my ups and downs because they are reminded of theirs.

Then I confess, "I have gotten eerily accustomed to my "ups and downs, ups and downs" (Vonnegut Pg. 87) for they are easier to bear that way, expecting them and all. Also, it entertains me wherever I go, so that no trip is without its excitement. Life is better that way."

So as I'm trying to explain to my friend how to cope with the "ups and downs, ups and downs" (Vonnegut Pg. 87) in one's life, he interrupts and demands a status check on our relationship, as if I knew. He then says: "We are close friends, very close. We know each other better than anyone". You must remember this is the "... ultimate form of aggression" (Freudian Terminology)! I then proceed to fog up the mirror with my breath and draw a smiley face with my finger.

The Undead Language: Latin

I agree with David Crystal on his point on the status of a language subjectively based on usage. However, I believe that we must consider not the lives of the languages, but of their dialects, because, for the most part, the dialects are the ones who sprout and change from the language rather than the language itself. Therefore, I believe that Latin is not a dead language or a live language at all, but an undead. Furthermore, it is Latin's dialects that can be considered alive. For instance, Vulgar Latin (although not actually a dialect, but a folk version of the language) is extinct, and has been transformed into the latin-derived languages we know today. Vernacular languages, therefore, are the ones I consider to be the ones doing the transformation.

One Big Timeline

If I choose to stop writing this blog, how can I be sure that I actually chose to do so and it wasn’t predicted beforehand, making my “choice” of doing so not a choice at all? The truth is, I can’t. If I were “a Tralfalmadorian, seeing time as you might see a stretch of the Rocky Mountains” (Vonnegut Pg. 85-86), my perception of not only the future, past, and present would change, but so would my perception of life altogether. What is the purpose of a life lived when nothing will happen and everything has happened beforehand? Is the purpose of life simply to be? By saying that “all time is all time” (Vonnegut Pg. 86), the alien kidnapper insinuates the possibility of the present, past, and future existing as one entity and at the same time. “all time” (past, present, and future) exists at all times. When you are born, you are dying and being conceived, all at once. Shall we, then, see life as simply a live time-line, where one sees the video of life with ability to fast-forward and rewind?

If you “Take it moment by moment, you will find that we are all…bugs in amber” (Vonnegut Pg. 86). By ‘bugs in amber’, Vonnegut describes the purposelessness of our life, and our great inability to do anything about it. What motivation have we to live, knowing that everything is planned for us? If we shall release ourselves unto the uncontrollable rivers of life, we would capitulate the meaning and pleasures of life. Knowing that we have the choice to do good or bad leaves us with a great responsibility, but also with a great sense of pride, knowing that whatever has become of us is product of the choices we made in the past. Our life is our life’s work, not the figment of written history.

If it were proven before us, that free will is merely a figment of our many hopes and dreams, does that mean that we are free to do anything we please? Does it mean that we can stop trying so hard to make life for ourselves? What then, would happen? I believe that unless we gain the ability to envision time in the perspective of the Tralfalmadorians, we shall always attempt to make the choices that will form a better life for us. We would never surrender our “illusions” of free-will without solid evidence of the “all time is all time” theory.

Says Who?

As in Dante’s Inferno, the Author of Slaughter House-Five, Kurt Vonnegut, employs a literary device by meddling with the time-line and changing the narrator every so often. For instance, the change of narrator that occurs in the Holocaust book is a transition from the writer of the book within the book, who is depicted in first-person narration, while he to whom all the events described is told by an omnipresent voice. The ubiquitous narrator is he who describes how “I was there. So was my old war buddy, Bernard V. O’Hare” (Vonnegut Pg. 67), and by so doing so, makes us be aware of the fact that the first person narrator is living in the post-war future of Billy Pilgrim, who’s story he describes in third-person form: “Billy owned a lovely Georgian home in Ilium” (Vonnegut Pg. 61). I believe that the Vonnegut makes this transition from the narrator to narrated (both being the same person) to stress how old Billy Pilgrim the veteran is an entirely different person than the suicidal Billy Pilgrim, the one who marched and walked “bobbing up-and –down, up-and-down…” (Vonnegut Pg. 65).

The transition between narrator can also be found within Dante’s Inferno when Dante the writer makes a side note on what he describes to be occurring to Dante he who journeyed through Hell. Although Dante the writer and Dante the traveler’s messages are conveyed via the same narrator’s position (first-person), there is an obvious change in tone and emotions among the variation of speaker, making the author mark the importance of the change that Dante underwent on his journey through the darkness. Dante the traveler is a more fearful and perplexed character, saying how he is one who “even as one who dreams that he is dreaming that he is harmed and, dreaming, wishes he were dreaming, thus desiring that which is, as if it were not…” (Dante. Inferno Canto 30.136-138). While Dante the trekker is so, Dante the writer is more narcissistic, trait which can be observed in reference to Dante’s description of the snakes and Florentine Thieves’ metamorphosis: “Let Lucan now be silent, where he sings of sad Sabellus and Nasidius, and wait to hear what flies off from my bow… Let Ovid now be silent…if his verse has made of one a serpent, one a fountain, I do not envy him; he never did transmute two natures, face to face, so that both forms were ready to exchange matter” (Dante. Inferno. Canto 15.97-102). Hence, we see two very different narrators who, although they speak in the same person and of the same person and are the same person, are so describing the physical and mental change of one being, as in Slaughter House-Five.

Finally, even though the different narrators in these works show the transformation of one being, we must not fail to notice the transformation of the writer as he describes his hardships, how they have shaped him, and how he continues to be shaped through his solemn recollection. Remembering the past is not consistently simple, but it must be done in order to change oneself, especially for the better.

Snobbism: Our Society's Epitaph

I believe that everyone is with me on this when I state that one of the most despicable traits is a person is snobbism. The sight of someone disgracing their potential by believing they can order others around to do their tasks vexes me. I feel sorry for such people: Not only are they becoming a pain to be around by expecting that their “superiority” is enough to entitle them to ultimate command over others, but they are surrendering their life’s potential by capitulating to their own laziness.

When a person (commonly a teenager) commands a maid to carry out an obviously simple task they themselves could do, what is that person thinking? For instance, when someone asks their maid to make them another dish upon seeing that the one available is either “unacceptable” or “disgustful”, that person isn’t considering the amount of energy that required to make it. That person is being supremely ungrateful and that fills me with disgust. It spites me so, that upon experiencing such act being carried out, my image of that person immediately changes. I believe that a person who is tortured by lethargy and doesn’t attempt to be rid of it is condemned to a life of inutility.

The thought of a person who, defeated by his laziness, relies on “superiority” to command harshly entrust others to carry out their tasks makes me sick at the stomach. What vexes me even more is the fact that those snobs believe that they have the right to act the way they do. In my opinion, the idiosyncrasy of thinking that others can and should do one’s tasks is inherited and often promoted by the parents. As the ultimate role models of every person, parents have the dire responsibility to act respectfully towards others. When a child is seen showing signs of contempt towards others, everyone around him/her, their parents, in particular, should reprimand the act, explaining how such behavior is the pitfall of human behavior in society. Instead, most parents are afraid of scolding their children in fear of being marked as extremists or controllers. As long as people act contemptuously towards others, it shall be ever-more difficult to summon the energy required for the most simple of tasks. They will alienate others and will become lazy, wasting their lives in hoping that others will work for them.

Neat Torturing

I visited Spain on the summer of 2008. One of the cities I went to was Toledo, capital of swordsmanship, Don Quixote, and warfare. During my short stay at this city, I went to a Torture Museum. Honestly, I have to say that not only was it excruciatingly gruesome, but also creative. For instance, one of the inventions forced the person into a cage, where they would be curled into a ball for days. They would starve to death after their limbs live immense pain due to the cramps of the unchanging position. The amount of imagination required for the construction of these contraptions is astounding.

There is one repercussion that war is known to have on its participants: To dehumanize them making them amoral. For instance, the Roland Weary character described in chapter two of Slaughter House-Five by Kurt Vonnegut depicts a mind ravaged by social alienation due to his uncommon set of principles. He would strike any one who befriended him, given the time. The violent Weary feels that the only means through which he can connect to people is physically, brutally. The savage Weary shows his degree of morals when he glorified the idea of “…sticking a dentist’s drill into a guy’s ear” (Vonnegut Pg. 36). The “neat tortures” (Vonnegut Pg. 36) he describes are in fact truly macabre. His stripped moralities tear at the very essence of the peaceful spirit, making a true barbarous warrior.

When going to war, nations must have in mind the effects of the battle difficulties and their toll on the soldiers, and how those traumatized people will end up returning to their Patria. What is the cost of victory? I believe that no war leaves any contending side triumphant, however happy the returning fighters might seem to be.